For Consumers, Only Certainty of Net Neutrality Is Uncertainty

    A Senate panel is scheduled to take up legislation that aims at settling an intensifying debate between the corporations that own the lines that bring Internet service to millions of homes and offices and the companies that enable people to use those services.

    The debate comes down to two sides: Web content providers like Google, eBay, Microsoft and consumer advocacy groups who say the federal government needs to insure the Internet is equally available to everyone, and telecom firms like AT&T and Verizon, who want to set a system of fees to charge more to people who create or use the heaviest amount of content -- like streaming video products -- that take up the widest bandwidth on the Web.

    Telecommunication firms "would have control over which bits flowed over their network to the consumer," said Consumer Federation of America research director Mark Cooper, who is seeking "net neutrality" regulations.

    "The current system that's in place, the status quo ... it's not sustainable as the Internet evolves," said AT&T spokeswoman Claudia Jones, who argues an as-yet undefined payment system will create a more efficient Internet.

    "We're not going for the dumb pipe scenario where you build this huge pipe that needs to be bigger and bigger and bigger" to serve everyone's needs, Jones said. "What we're going for is building a network that we'll call a smart network."

    She said her firm is considering a system that would enable instances where a faster network would clearly benefit certain people. In addition to live streaming video, for instance, an emergency room patient might want to make his or her medical records available online.

    "I'd rather have my medical files, if I need my medical files, delivered far faster in an emergency than [data requested by] a teenager downloading a music file," Jones said.

    Economist Larry Darby, who was a civil servant in the FCC during the Ford and Carter administrations, said consumers actually would be hurt by tougher rules set by the government.

    In a study Darby prepared, released this month by the American Consumer Institute, he estimates that consumers would be worse off by $24 billion to $32 billion if the government imposed net neutrality regulations because individuals would be picking up the tab for the heavy content providers.

    Furthermore, he said government action would likely be ineffective.

    American Consumer Institute President Stephen Posciak added that he thinks the plans being pushed by the telecoms could help foster free speech, rather than deter it, by giving subscribers price relief.

    But net neutrality advocates say the public will end up on the short end of the stick without a heavier government hand to keep an eye on the telecoms. They argue that if broadband providers discriminate by price, those who can't afford the more expensive service could lose vital access to tools that so far has been available to everyone.